Argentina's Prosecution office considered that the Tierra del Fuego province bill establishing limits, and rulings for the breeding and production of salmon species in provincial jurisdictional waters do not exceed limits of the reasonable and besides were approved by the Legislative in the full exercise of its environmental competence, which privilege the conservation of natural resources above considerations of other nature.
In other words an appeal presentation made by the company Australmar Almanza de Valdés which is dedicated to the breeding and fattening of rainbow trout, first in fresh water and later in floating pens in the sea, processed at Almanza, and has the national and provincial quality certification, Tiera del Fuego-Fin del Mundo awarded following the compliance of certain conditions including the conservation of the environment and treatment of residues from the production activity, has been rejected.
The appeal argues that the prohibition of breeding and producing salmons in lake and maritime provincial waters of Tierra del Fuego, is illegitimate and in conflict with other legal rulings and the Argentine constitution,
Thus prohibition violates prescriptions from articles 81 and 87 of the provincial constitution which determines the subsidiary establishment of the State in the exploitation activity and transformation of natural resources, and preserves, regulates and promotes fishery, sea-culture and aquaculture activities, in collision with the national bill for Sustainable Development of the aquaculture sector.
However ruling 19/21 from 13 August points out that the precautionary rationality in the Environment Omnibus Bill admits as valid and possible, manifestations not only the suspension but also the prohibition of all dangerous activity that might constitute a serious threat for the ecosystem, even when there is no scientific certainty of its noxiousness, and thus public concern as the above measure are justified based on the precautionary principle, reasonable doubts that arouse controversial opinions and antagonistic proofs, must always be solved in favor of environmental tutelage.
Furthermore doctrine establishes that uncertainty over the future effects of an activity can lead to its prohibition even without proven certainty of its harmfulness to the ecosystem, and that this decision is legitimate even when it is later shown that prohibition was not justified or that it was innocuous, since it is always far more costly for humanity to recompose the serious irreversible damages that such an anthropic activity can cause compared to the loss of profits delayed by the suspension